Pa.

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 793 Case file # 95-288462 .

Material Examiner: Malone (RQ)

Remarks:

Case resulted in trial, transcript available..

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: | Hair and Fiber Review commenced at: 1:00 PM (Time), 03/13/2001 (Date) File #: 95-288462

Laboratory #(s): 90608020 90608083

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed xo a Oo oO a xa a a

O a

Materials Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Michael Malone

Testimony Date(s): 11-15-89 "Pages: —- 262-283

Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number: 90608020/90608083 : Sept 7, 1989 Laboratory Number:

Laboratory Number:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ Laboratory Number: 90608020 90608083

Was any other material reviewed? XO Yes Q No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: | Submitting agency letters (dated 6-5-89 and 6-6-89)

Results of Review File #: 95-288462 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1, Q10-Q13, Q18-Q30, K1, K2,

K7, K8

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the

methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? O Yes QNo XO Unable to Determine

Are the examination results set forth in the labordto ri(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? a O Unable to Determine

— se

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

QO Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? XO Yes QO No O Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? X O Yes BNo O Unable to Determine

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? OYes\ Ronee Unable to Determine

Comments /OF (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. fr Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-288462

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the comparison

was performed correctly.

#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the notes do not indicate that any hair was recovered from the Q items. RQ uses abbreviations to indicate the

microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret.

The laboratory report contains results of hair comparisons performed on multiple cases (90608077, 90608078,

90608079, 90608080, 90608081, 90608082, 90608084, 90608085, 90608086, 90608087). There is no

Review completed at: 2:15 PM (Time), 03/13/2001 (Date) Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 1:15 hours

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 4 ages.

03/13/2001

3 (Signature) (Date)

Page 3 of 4

Initials: Sud 4

Additional Comments (Set forth by question #, if applicable)

File #: 95-288462

#2 (continued): documentation of the hair comparisons in these cases within this case file.

All hair matches were apparently verified by a second hair examiner.

#5: Malone testified that the head hair and the pubic hair transfer are two independent events. While this is true,

he goes on to state that, in his opinion, the chances that the head and the pubic hair came from someone else

besides the defendant is “almost non-existent”. While the finding of head and pubic hair matching head and

pubic hair of one individual increases the likelihood those hair came from that individual, hair comparisons

remain associative evidence that “do not constitute a basis for absolute personal identification”, as stated in his

laboratory report. Maloné has overstated the significance of the hair comparison.

NRL gee ci ae ° nF Stag, we aay Fa etids Peg ost y toparent ae. Sessile depots 08 a a GS ee aie AEB thee

He also testified that, in nis sop IMR: the defendant was almost eae in the residence where the hair samples

nae

Tae it PS Ree,